On 11/10/19 18:04, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
Questions about using cycle relations properly:
I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There
are a lot of designated cycling roads that follow a long rivers and
other water features out into the countryside, making up a regional
system, and a lot of smaller local cycling roads (also along small
rivers) that connect neighborhoods and towns together.
I’m working to get all the individual ways of the cycle roads into
relations and to properly classify these (local/regional, etc).
But on the cycling layer of OSM, I find regular roads labeled as cycle
routes: mountain roads where professional cyclists like to exercise
labeled as a “cycling route”, which seems like “mapping for the renderer”.
- They don’t seem to be cycling roads - all the relation members are
trunk roads or similar - no cycleways whatsoever.
There is no requirement for a cycle route to use cycleways, even in part.
-they are dangerous routes with no side-paths, sidewalks, or dedicated
cycle lanes - just regular roads.
- they are exercise loops or hill climbs for pro cyclistsand serve no
purpose for travelers or commuters.
Never the less they could be seen as cycle routes - frequently used by
- they are not, AFAIK, part of an official “cycling network”. The
Super-relation someone has added all cycle routes to (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8051094 also seems to be
made-up and not official either - the name only returns one result
(the OSM data page) when searched.
To me, these non-cycle routes are just garbage relations meant to have
the route show up on the cycling view of OSM for people doing workouts.
I have had a commuting cyclist map into OSM cycling lanes .. that are
not there, shared paths that are not shared.. I would much rather that
were mapped as routes showing the actual infrastructure that is there.
I want to delete these fake “mountain workout” relations that should
be mapped in strava or a similar workout app.
If the route shows that regular roads are used .. possibly use the
description key to state the nature of the route?
Tagging mailing list